Given its preoccupation with the doctor's agency in administering euthanasia, the legal discourse on euthanasia in India has neglected the moral relevance of the patient's suffering in determining the legitimate types of euthanasia. In this paper, I begin by explicating the condition for the possibility of euthanasia in terms of the following moral principle: the doctor ought to give priority to the patient's suffering over the patient's life. I argue that the form of passive euthanasia legally permissible in India is inconsistent with this moral principle, owing to the consequences it entails for the patient. Inevitably, it is acts of commission on the part of the doctor that can provide the best possible death, which is the moral objective of euthanasia. To meet this objective, doctors must be seen as agents who possess the moral integrity and technical expertise to judge when and how the patient’s life ought to be terminated, depending on the patient’s medical condition. They are not bound to save lives and provide care unconditionally.